[Renaud]

It's banned (not just in France) because there is are existing laws against face-covering and religion is not above that.

There is also a perfectly rational thinking behind a reciprocity of rights: if you can see me but I can't see you then we're not equal.

There are also fierce debates around the role of women, ensuring equal opportunities in society, and the fact that ideology (whether religious or not) should not remove citizens from their rights and duties.

Of course, any of this is always open for debatable, and it is debated, at length, politically, socially, philosophically and these issues are always in flux, between those who want more restrictions in the name of greater freedom for all, and those who want less in the name of greater freedom for all.

[lldbg]

The french debate on the face-covering ban was well broadcasted internationally, and it was clear to me then that it was about burqas and niqabs. The law came in place when there were thousands of people wearing religious face coverings, not before. I do not agree with the sentiment of your first paragraph, in fact it seems to me that you are being either intentionally misleading or ignorant.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jun/22/islamic-veils-...

He called the burqa "a problem". And he said that somehow it's not a religious symbol (of course it is ...).

[Renaud]

There were existing rules against covering your face in some situations but you are perfectly right that the law in 2010 was triggered by the rise of radical islam and the (perceived or real) problem that full head coverage place on Republican values[1].

>And he said that somehow it's not a religious symbol. The full sentence: "It's not a religious symbol, but a sign of subservience and debasement."

Basically, "some think it's a religious sign, but we don't agree". And most Muslims in France don't either as the wearing of burqas and niqabs was quite uncommon in the first place (some estimates placed the number of women wearing them at around 2000).

We can argue on the merit of forbidding full-covering or whether there was really a need for all that noise but there is a reasoning and much public debate on the matter.

From your original comment, you seem to disagree, but in France people are free to practice any religion they wish, as long as it is done within the boundaries of the country's values and laws. So your statement of "Religion is already banned in places such as France" -without further characterisation- is clearly inflamatory and false.

[1]: Deepl makes a decent translation of this: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/dossierlegislatif/JORFDOLE000...

[stale2002]

Oh c'mon.

If there were a law that banned cross shaped objects, and then someone said "well, we aren't banning a religious symbol! All things in a cross shape are banned" this would obviously be a dishonest argument.

We don't have to play games here, or be dishonest about what the purpose of the ban was.

> was triggered by the rise of radical islam

Ok, so then you agree that it was literally created to target certain religion practices... That is what people are saying. That is a target law, meant to attack a certain religious group, specifically that of "fundamentalist islam".

That is what everyone is saying.